Re: {OT} minimum wage hypocrisy by pelosi

This is sorta like the way the republicans repeatedly allow coal-based
electric utilities to get around the Clean Air Act by buying and selling
"pollution credits". It's funny how the biggest supporters of this crime are
from the states where more coal is used.

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/13/2007,10:29:27 AM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is sorta like the way the republicans repeatedly allow
> coal-based electric utilities to get around the Clean Air Act by
> buying and selling "pollution credits". It's funny how the biggest
> supporters of this crime are from the states where more coal is used.[/color]

What does that have to do with the topic?

Mrs. Pelosi promised things were not going to be business-as-usual.
She claimed ethics reform was what was needed but continues to do
things as usual. This is just another example of the hypocrisy
Democrats exhibit when they portray themselves as something else.

Just realize you're not getting anything different with the new
Congress. It's all been done before and will continue to be done the
same way.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f15r4c6t5ucp001@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/13/2007,10:29:27 AM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> This is sorta like the way the republicans repeatedly allow
>> coal-based electric utilities to get around the Clean Air Act by
>> buying and selling "pollution credits". It's funny how the biggest
>> supporters of this crime are from the states where more coal is used.[/color]
>
> What does that have to do with the topic?
>
> Mrs. Pelosi promised things were not going to be business-as-usual.
> She claimed ethics reform was what was needed but continues to do
> things as usual. This is just another example of the hypocrisy
> Democrats exhibit when they portray themselves as something else.
>
> Just realize you're not getting anything different with the new
> Congress. It's all been done before and will continue to be done the
> same way.[/color]

I thought the point was that she's a legislator making special exemptions
for her financial supporters, just like all politicians. If you believed she
was going to be different in that way, you're a baby.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f15sti6vh5m8000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/13/2007,10:50:22 AM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0f15r4c6t5ucp001@news.readfreenews.net...[color=darkred]
>> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/13/2007,10:29:27 AM, wrote:
>> >
>> > > This is sorta like the way the republicans repeatedly allow
>> > > coal-based electric utilities to get around the Clean Air Act by
>> > > buying and selling "pollution credits". It's funny how the biggest
>> > > supporters of this crime are from the states where more coal is
>> > > used.
>> >
>> > What does that have to do with the topic?
>> >
>> > Mrs. Pelosi promised things were not going to be business-as-usual.
>> > She claimed ethics reform was what was needed but continues to do
>> > things as usual. This is just another example of the hypocrisy
>> > Democrats exhibit when they portray themselves as something else.
>> >
>> > Just realize you're not getting anything different with the new
>> > Congress. It's all been done before and will continue to be done
>> > the same way.[/color]
>>
>> I thought the point was that she's a legislator making special
>> exemptions for her financial supporters, just like all politicians.
>> If you believed she was going to be different in that way, you're a
>> baby.[/color]
>
> You fail to grasp the point. "This minimum wage law is good for
> everyone else but not good for my constituents." That is the
> impression everyone else gets by seeing her exempt a particular company
> in her district. Why did she do that?[/color]


I do NOT fail to grasp the point. Rather, I expected her to be not much
different than any other politician, regardless of party affiliation.

"This clean air law is goof for everyone else, but not the electric
utilities which contributed to my campaign". Actually, this situation is
even worse: With Pelosi, you KNOW it's Starkist that's meddling in politics.
Bush, on the other hand, refused to reveal which corporate executives were
at his energy policy meetings. He said it was his prerogative to keep
certain things a secret. Do you find this particular example to be weird?

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/13/2007,12:23:04 PM, wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > You fail to grasp the point. "This minimum wage law is good for
> > everyone else but not good for my constituents." That is the
> > impression everyone else gets by seeing her exempt a particular
> > company in her district. Why did she do that?[/color]
>
>
> I do NOT fail to grasp the point. Rather, I expected her to be not
> much different than any other politician, regardless of party
> affiliation.[/color]

Then I guess I fail to understand why you supported her and still do.
If she's no different than any other politician there was no reason for
her to assume power as Speaker of the House. The Democrats should have
elected someone who would effect change. After all, wasn't that what
the American people supposedly wanted according to the talking heads?
If she's no different then I guess we can look forward to another power
shift in two years.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f15y6g72noqi000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/13/2007,12:23:04 PM, wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > You fail to grasp the point. "This minimum wage law is good for
>> > everyone else but not good for my constituents." That is the
>> > impression everyone else gets by seeing her exempt a particular
>> > company in her district. Why did she do that?[/color]
>>
>>
>> I do NOT fail to grasp the point. Rather, I expected her to be not
>> much different than any other politician, regardless of party
>> affiliation.[/color]
>
> Then I guess I fail to understand why you supported her and still do.
> If she's no different than any other politician there was no reason for
> her to assume power as Speaker of the House. The Democrats should have
> elected someone who would effect change. After all, wasn't that what
> the American people supposedly wanted according to the talking heads?
> If she's no different then I guess we can look forward to another power
> shift in two years.[/color]


Supported her? I didn't vote for her.